SAFE Network Dev Update - August 30, 2018

[dirvine]

@zeroflaw

I mean in the sense of ‘the network will refuse upgrade’. Which makes the network sound like some kind of artificial intelligence, which first evaluates upgrades. When actually, it it probably means something more along the lines of an update takes effected once adoption is high enough. As you don’t collect statistics in the network, you wouldn’t know that it’s been adopted. If a bug occurred after two updates, with the bug in update one, but wasn’t detected because of low adoption, it makes tracking issues very difficult.

Not so much really, a basic idea here is that a peer will run a parallel vault (the upgraded one) and confirm over a random period that it behaves and can earn safecoin (as an example) at an acceptable rate and then kill off the old vault and run the new one with the old vaults key (age). I think your answer has a lot of absolutes and I note a lot of this recently in conversations, not much is absolute especially the inside of others minds I am not trying to be flippant, just absolutes are easy to disprove and wastes good debate time.

@zeroflaw

Again the obsession with making nodes anonymous isn’t really possible.

It is always possible to tend towards anonymity, again absolutes are easy to debate. Like security, longevity etc. tending towards a goal is natures way, stating you are there is probably never going to happen in such cases as these. Tending towards these is an admirable goal. How far? then is a reasonable question with a multitude of answers, but much further than today is a great goal.

@zeroflaw

18. Only accept more vaults when it requires them.

Sounds very British are nodes going to form an orderly FIFO queue, or are you going to weight them based on some kind of metric that means some nodes are more important than others? I dunno, something like geo-distribution so you are able to guarantee data redundancy instead of leaving it to randomness.

Not so much British, but logical, if you check farm rewards the network as a whole (measured per section) will know when it is short of resources. At that time it will increase rewards and increase the number of nodes accepted into that section (to perhaps force a split). Hope that makes some sense

@zeroflaw

Call them farmers if you like, but in the end they are still servers.

This is a typically nonsense thing I hear a lot (sorry), so any computer device is a server if it outputs data, so every living organism is a computing device and therefore a server. This is why we state in the usual sense of the word.

These types of statements like everything is marketing, everything is a server etc. are a waste of time. For instance, I could argue (very correctly) that 1 plus 1 equals 2 is baloney as you cannot have 2 things being equal to start with (equal in every sense, including their position in time and space) and therefore 1+1 is a false assertion to start with as it is a nonsensical notion that cannot exist, never mind have an answer.

Then for every math presentation, I could scream this from the audience and just waste everyone’s time

That is the outcome of not accepting a reasonable limit on a description of anything.

I hope this does not sound condescending, I do appreciate the feedback as it is likely what we will hear in the wider world and our marketing and PR folk need to be able to handle those things. So this input is actually very useful, but again the answers may have to reflect some of the tone of the questions, I am not sure. I find some of these things hard to repeat to often, but the absolute position of the question that frames something not in the statement as the only way to achieve the statement is quite hard to reframe properly.

In any case thanks @zeroflaw for providing the most important attribute, your time. I do appreciate it and hope we get better ways to handle such questions that will not sound confrontational.